I never thought I would agree with R.L. Ranger (obviously his pen name, as according to a debate I had with him/her in the ILW.COM letters to the editor a couple of months ago reveals) on any subject because in our previous debate my recollection of him/her is that of a "right-winger", but I agree with his admonition concerning your editorials: "a more balanced editorial posture" is "appropriate and even overdue." (Although I do not have quite as harsh a criticism of your editorial history as does he/she.
While the editors of ILW.COM have just as much right to express their opinions as do I or R.L. Ranger (the difference being that we all know who you and I are), I believe ILW.COM might do themselves a disservice in taking too proactive an approach, or preaching. . . whether it be to the "choir" or to the "unwashed masses", since such preaching may tend to dilute your credibility as a professional publication and turn you into a reverse FAIR.
I hope ILW.COM will continue to bring a balanced publication to the legal community, that you will refrain from over-editorializing and that you will refrain from turning ILW.COM into a soap box for either the "right" or the "left", as you have so aptly done before the debate about Special Registration began.
Surprisingly, I also agree with R.L. Ranger in his statement, "The logic relating to the futility and unfairness of continual amnesties or a program disguised as an amnesty, is beyond reproach. Any guest worker program must be strictly controlled and regulated and that guest must at some point leave and return, otherwise a fraud is imposed. A "guest" who visited your home and never left is not really a guest, but a resident." Where he/she and I differ is that he/she appears to be on his/her right-wing soap box in opining, "And no program relating to immigration can be successful until our air, sea and land borders are fully secured and visitors tightly monitored as some will find a way to exploit any border or program not so controlled." Although I do not believe R.L.'s and my hearts are in the same place, or that our motives for these points of view are born of a common philosophy, I believe all of us must remember that we are a nation of laws, not men, and that laws flaunted can easily lead to anarchy.
I could not help but think of the "bread lines" in Ohio that I saw in a segment of a major network magazine show last evening when I read R.L. Ranger's statement, "The proper solution to this is to reduce government spending to proper, limited purposes and to allow families to keep more of their incomes and jobs that pay a livable wage, not to invite huge numbers of the world's workers who are accustomed to a lower standard of living to displace workers here because they may work for less. The long term effects of this are disastrous, at least to most Americans."
But it is not only the influx of immigrant labor that is the real problem, it is the exodus of US manufacturing overseas, to Mexican macquiladoras, to China where a machinist earns fifty cents an hour making molds for the plastic injection industry when skilled American mold makers earn up to a hundred times that paltry wage, to the garment factories of Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines, and on and on.
Immigration is not the problem with our country and it should not be the "whipping boy" of the homeland security movement, but it is an emotional issue and we would all do well to understand the socio-economic aspects before taking a "pro" or "contra" position, because we need a fair and equitable immigration system that will engender respect for people who immigrate here from other lands. ILW.COM can help in this regard if the editors themselves remain objective and non-judgmental, notwithstanding how tempting it may be when emotions run high or windmills need to be fought.
David D. Murray, Esq.
Newport Beach, CA
Share this page
Bookmark this page
The leading immigration law publisher - over 50000 pages of free information!
© Copyright 1995- American Immigration LLC, ILW.COM